Linux-Advocacy Digest #451, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 03:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Tom Hanlin")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Which OS is WORST? (Ketil Nordstad)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Timberwoof)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Hanlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 05:23:59 GMT
On 9-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> certainly lends itself well to these types of abuses. Bill may believe he
> "made the PC what it is today" as much as he believes that per-processor
> licensing isn't unethical, or as much as Al Gore believes he invented the
> Internet. The point is that it is a fundamental principle we *must* rely
> on that markets take care of themselves, if possible.
Bill was certainly a major factor in what made the PC what it is today, for
better or worse. Having been there before there was a standard PC that you
could reasonably write code for, or a documented set of APIs that actually
let you do things like (gasp) write a file to a disk without using the
vendor's languages, or develop a replaceable terminal driver ("patch these
bytes to clear the screen") because there was no such concept as a standard
display device-- well, y'know, I see an awful lot to like about market-based
standards.
The notion of Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet is a typical
bit of Press gibberish, by the way. I'm not a great fan of the old wooden
Indian, but the actual quote had to do with his having helped create the
Internet by way of approving funding for DARPAnet. It's still an excessive
claim, but nothing like the foolishness that the Press likes to claim.
> It does, ultimately, come down to an ethical, not an economic, issue.
> Markets exist to serve people, not the other way around. The
> philosophy is not typically examined very often, but if the individual's
> rights are pre-eminent over society's demands, then the customer's
> right to a free and open market would *always* counter-balance any
> "right" to a market, intellectual property, or even a license to do
> business which a legal abstraction such as a "company" or a
> "corporation" might lay claim to.
Talk is cheap but, dare I say, some talk is cheaper than others. In what
respect is it wrong for two people to do the same thing that would be right
for one person? A "legal abstraction", goodness. You might as well put down
the ideas of "money" or "freedom" or "responsibility"-- abstractions all,
sad to say. For all their value, you just can't keep them in a bucket.
> But that works for us once we mitigate the monopoly powers, just as much
> as it has been working against us while the monopoly runs rampant.
> Simply breaking MS into two, with appropriate controls and behavioral
> restrictions, will be enough to let market forces overcome any grip that
> either piece would have (or > even quite possibly both grips). Thus the
> theory goes, and I think that the natural forces underlying capitalism and
> free market economics are more than solid enough in principle to effect
> this change.
Honestly, as if Microsoft were a monopoly! Pity "poor little IBM", grossly
larger and richer than Microsoft, yet piteously claiming to be a victim.
Poor little Sun ("you mean, if we call Java an Open Standard, we can't
control it any more? Snarl"). Poor Novell ("you mean that network software
is supposed to enforce file locking? Never mind, we'll fix that Next Year").
The problem isn't that Microsoft is a big brute, it's that so many other
companies are so wholly inept. Sure, they're mad that they don't succeed
better, and-- like almost all of the companies that wrap layers of copy
protection around their software against The Legions Of Thieves Out There
And You're Probably One Of Them-- seem to have no clue at all that their
problem isn't due to being ripped off, it's that their products are just
basically awful.
> Did you think you had reason to believe that Microsoft was being
> extremely, even criminally, anti-competitive when they toyed with
> other developer's ability to write both OS/2 and Windows applications?
> Did you consider Windows 3.1 a classical case of bundling, setting an
> anti-consumer precedent for the industry that might take decades to
> overcome. You ever see a "Windows may not run on DR-DOS"
> scare tactic?
At the time, sonny, it was "Microsoft OS/2"-- and have you ever asked of any
other company whether they toyed with your ability to write for multiple
operating systems at the same time just because they preferred to focus on
one in particular? What was it you consider "bundled" with Windows 3.1...
Solitaire?
Yep, Microsoft did get dirty with DR-DOS, and that was clearly sleazy,
although I don't think it caused great harm to either of the DR-DOS
customers at the time. I owned DR-DOS myself. It was barely different than
MS-DOS in any respect and far from a compelling purchase. Its main claim to
fame was an improved security system, which was so cleverly designed that it
would permanently prevent you from accessing your own hard drive if you ran
the security program without parameters (expecting a help screen, which was
the usual default for products at the time). It was basically an MS-DOS
clone with a slightly better command shell (if you didn't use any of the
free utilities available off BBSes) and a few random utilities thrown in, at
an unimpressive price.
> Forgetting entirely that in 1976 we changed the rules, and software was
> now
> intellectual property, and when it comes to barriers to entry and legal
> protections, IP takes the cake.
Intellectual property laws have gone back well before 1776, let alone 1976.
If you'd like to argue that there's no value to copyright protections for
books or articles or music or paintings or photos, or patents for designs,
or anything else-- well, you've got a radical notion for reshaping the
history of the planet, and you're standing on shaky ground. In general, the
strong U.S. legal protection of intellectual property has generally been
considered one of the foundations for our innovation and prosperity.
Anyway, like your own missive, this is getting long-winded. :-)
--
Thomas G. Hanlin III, Programmer At Large
home: http://www.tgh3.com - programming tools & libraries, games and things
work: http://www.powerbasic.com - DOS & Windows BASIC compilers & tools
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 05:22:59 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 06:20 PM,
Chris the MS Mole Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 05/10/2000 at 09:44 AM,
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> > > Microsoft behave identically to almost every other company. Bitching
> > > about Microsoft without also bitching about everyone else is hypocrisy,
> > > plain and simple.
> >
> > What a load of pure fiction! Most companies do not get convicted of
> > breaking the anti-trust laws of the United States. In fact, only a
> > miniscule percentage does.
> >
> > Microsoft is a corrupt, lawbreaking disgrace.
> Smith used the word "behave."
Yes, should have been behaves. But this is not Remedial English 101.
> "Getting convicted" isn't a behavior. It's an event that can happen
> to a company.
You are an absolute asshole. Getting convicted results from illegal
behavior. Most companies do not engage in illegal activity. Microsoft did.
Your conduct here is unwelcome. This is an ADVOCACY group for ONE product
and ONE product ONLY - Warp.
Your advocacy of MS crap is a rude intrusion. Therefore you deserve rude
treatment.
Go fuck yourself you worthless pile of rotten shit.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 05:32:02 GMT
On 05/11/2000 at 01:25 PM,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> We also know from many other places that DRDOS does/did have memory
> management compatibility problems (try playing some "cutting edge" (at
> the time) games on DRDOS).
The only idiots making such claims here are intruders like you who don't
belong here. This newsgroup is not intended to promote anything other than
OS/2. It most especially is not a playground for Bill Gates' suckups like
you.
GO AWAY!!!
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 05:35:27 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 10:03 PM,
"Erik Fuckinliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That still doesn't indicate that MS's ONLY reason for the message was to
> drive them out of the market. That's the message i'm responding to, the
> fact that driving them out of the market is not the only possible reason
> for it.
You are an unwelcome intruder here. Justifying the actions of a convicted
criminal organization and its employees is not the purpose of this group.
If you continue to post in this newsgroup, you will find post attacking
you in every newsgroup in which I find your name.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:36:22 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fdcam$29kb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8fdb70$t4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >> I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the
difference
> >> >> between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not? That
> >> >> is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
> >> >
> >> >Yes. Different icon, different file extension.
> >>
> >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
> >
> >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
>
> Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
> first time you see a new type?
How do you tell, the first time you see a .exe file ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 06:29:14 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 21:52:39 -0700, Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I don't represent Scientology. You called it frightening, and I am
>asking what you know about it. As for German government, I believe that
>they are promoting intolerance in this stance. Their position on M$ has
>nothing to do with the product, and everything to do with paranoid
>intolerance of an alternative world view. Given the history of the
>country, that is one government that I do not like seeing actively
>promoting intolerance.
A little skepticism for something that is a bit of a 'fly
by night operation' in comparison to the other things that
German regimes have been intolerant about in this century
would actually be rather called for.
To put Hubbard's little money making scheme in the same
league as a culture and religion that has a continuous
history and tradition longer than the majority of cultures
on this planet is a tad bit absurd.
[deletia]
Merely bringing up Germany's past abuses does not autmagically
obsolve entities of criticism merely due to the particular
entity doing the criticising.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:39:08 +1000
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:391a45cb$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 05/11/2000 at 01:25 PM,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > We also know from many other places that DRDOS does/did have memory
> > management compatibility problems (try playing some "cutting edge" (at
> > the time) games on DRDOS).
>
> The only idiots making such claims here are intruders like you who don't
> belong here. This newsgroup is not intended to promote anything other than
> OS/2. It most especially is not a playground for Bill Gates' suckups like
> you.
"Here" is comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy.
>
> GO AWAY!!!
After you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ketil Nordstad)
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 06:41:33 GMT
>Actually, that is why the screens were green. They could have been made
>black and white but it was discovered that green on black leads to less eye
>fatigue.
>
>Gary
Sure about this? Why are they grey on black these days then?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:55:28 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fd9su$25gv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8fcbp3$hqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Challenge:
> >
> >Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done with
> >their *free* downloadable SDK?
> >
> >Just *one* API call is all I'm asking.
> >
> >MS provides WIn32 developers with *everything* they need and more.
> >
> >If you want to try this challenge, again, just give me *one* undocumented
> >API call or secret API (whatever) that meets this challenge.
> >
> >I bet that I can write *any* piece of Win32 software with the normal SDK
> >that is downloadable for *free* from MS's web site.
> >
> >All you conspiracy theorists are welcome to take this challenge.
> >
> >Just *one* API call is all I'm asking for here...
>
> Can you write a backup domain controller capable of syncing
> contents with an NT domain controller? Or a replacement
> primary controller that can sync to a Microsoft backup
> controller?
That's a protocol, not an API.
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:46:57 -0700
In article <391a45cb$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/11/2000 at 01:25 PM,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > We also know from many other places that DRDOS does/did have memory
> > management compatibility problems (try playing some "cutting edge" (at
> > the time) games on DRDOS).
>
> The only idiots making such claims here are intruders like you who don't
> belong here. This newsgroup is not intended to promote anything other
> than
> OS/2. It most especially is not a playground for Bill Gates' suckups like
> you.
>
> GO AWAY!!!
Bob, you dodo! "This newsgroup" is comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, and
comp.os.os2.advocacy. It's right there in the message header.
--
Timberwoof
Chief Perpetrator, Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
(timberwoof at infernosoft dot com -- www dot infernosoft dot com)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:05:15 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3rd party vendors didn't start supporting OLE for quite some time
after
> > it
> > > > was available.
> > >
> > > Correct. Because it was not even available to them for several (6+)
> > > months until after the release of Power Point.
> >
> > No, the OLE API was available when with the WIndows 3.0 SDK.
>
> Your dead wrong. MS cheated. OLE was invented by the apps group:
> Powerpoint to be specific. OLE was made available to the powerpoint
> group first being they were the ones who invented it and understood what
> the syntax and the SEMANTICS of the API.
This makes no sense. First of all, if the Powerpoint group invented OLE,
then how does that give them an unfair advantage? They invented it! If we
use your logic, MS wouldn't have had to make it available to anyone else,
they could have kept it in PowerPoint alone.
Second, are we talking about OLE1 or OLE2 here? They are very different
technologies. OLE 2 started in 1987 when Charlie Kindel and crew created
COM as the basis for IPC.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:06:05 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html
> >
> > Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991: "drdos has
problems
> > running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the
future."
> > Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future.
:-)",
> >
> > Clearly damage to the competition is not the only reason that could be
> > deduced if there were actual technical problems, which Silverberg says
there
> > were in internal memos.
>
> MS DOS had technical problems running windows therefore the comment
> about DR DOS is a trivial exercise in playing games with semantics.
What? That statement makes no sense.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:08:55 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > MS documents also show the fact that DR-DOS had problems with Windows.
>
> So too did MS DOS have technical problems with windows. One supposed
> benefit of tying DOS 7.0 to Windows4.0 (windows95) was the reduction in
> technical problems between the MS DOS and Windows.
Untrue. MS originally intended to completely remove MS DOS from Windows.
That turned out to not be feasible due to compatibility issues. There is
lots of evidence that suggests MS intended to remove DOS completely.
> This is about BRANDS. Windows checked for the OS brand - that isn't a
> legitimate technical requirement for windows. MS wasn't asked to make
> Windows compatible with DR DOS or support DR DOS or prove a warrenty -
> my god MS doesn't even give a warrenty with their own software.
What do you call no-charge 30 day technical support and a 60 day money back
guarantee, if not a warranty?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
